03 Sep The rapid growth of internet fantasy sports has raised the question as to whether sports statistics are information in the public domain or copyrightable info
The rapid growth of internet fantasy sports has raised the question as to whether sports statistics are information in the public domain or copyrightable information. After reviewing the Read: NBA v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 case found in the Learn section, answer the following questions:
1. What characteristics of player profiles and performance statistics are most likely to be determined as copyrightable? Base your position on findings in the case study.
2. What kinds of related issues do you think we may see in the future, given the continued growth in this area of the sport industry?
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Date and Time: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:56:00PM EDT
Job Number: 232526712
Document (1)
1. NBA v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841
Client/Matter: -None-
Caution As of: September 2, 2024 9:56 PM Z
NBA v. Motorola, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
October 21, 1996, Argued ; January 30, 1997, Decided
Docket Nos. 96-7975, 96-7983 (CON), 96-9123 (XAP)
Reporter 105 F.3d 841 *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527 **; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1585 ***; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,591; 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P71,705; 25 Media L. Rep. 1385
THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION and NBA PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC. doing business as Sports Trax, Defendant-Counter-Claimant- Appellant-Cross-Appellee, SPORTS TEAM ANALYSIS AND TRACKING SYSTEMS, INC. doing business as STATS, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Motorola and Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems ("STATS") appeal from a permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge) barring, inter alia, the sale of a handheld pager that displays updated scores and statistics of National Basketball Association games as they are played. The NBA and NBA Properties, Inc. cross-appeal from the district court's dismissal of its Lanham Act claim. We hold that Motorola and STATS have not unlawfully misappropriated NBA's property by transmitting "real-time" NBA game scores and statistics taken from television and radio broadcasts of games in progress. We therefore reverse on the misappropriation claim and vacate the injunction. On the cross-appeal, we affirm.
Disposition: We therefore reverse on the misappropriation claim and vacate the injunction. On the cross-appeal, we affirm.
Core Terms
misappropriation, broadcasts, games, preemption, pager, preempted, district court, subject matter, hot- news, survive, copyright protection, free-riding, updates, arena, Copyright Act, transmission, authorship, cases, site, state law, rights, radio, copying, sports, factual information, state law claim, general scope, injunction, scores, copyright infringement
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Appellants, a marketer and a supplier, sought review of a permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which barred appellants from transmitting "real-time" sports game data via handheld pagers. Appellees, a basketball association and a related entity, cross- appealed the dismissal of their claims under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a).
Overview
Appellants were enjoined from transmitting scores or other data about professional basketball games in progress via handheld pagers. Appellees had brought various trademark and misappropriation claims against appellants for the transmissions. The district court found that appellants were liable for misappropriation. It also dismissed appellees' claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). On review, the court held that appellees' state law claims for misappropriation survived preemption. Because appellants expended their own resources to collect purely factual information, they did not free-ride on appellees' product. As to appellees' cross-appeal, the court held that the alleged false statements pertained to nonmaterial minutiae that did not misrepresent an inherent quality or characteristic of the appellees' product.
Outcome The court vacated the injunction because it found that appellants were not liable for misappropriation of the game data and affirmed the dismissal of appellees' Lanham Act claim because the false statements did not effect a misrepresentation of appellants' product.
Page 2 of 16
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > General Overview
HN1[ ] Subject Matter, Common Law Copyrights
The court holds that the "hot-news" claim is limited to cases where: (i) a plaintiff generates or gathers information at a cost; (ii) the information is time- sensitive; (iii) a defendant's use of the information constitutes free-riding on the plaintiff's efforts; (iv) the defendant is in direct competition with a product or service offered by the plaintiffs; and (v) the ability of other parties to free-ride on the efforts of the plaintiff or others would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.
Copyright Law > … > Protected Subject Matter > Literary Works > Definition of Literary Work
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
HN2[ ] Literary Works, Definition of Literary Work
17 U.S.C.S. § 102(a) lists eight categories of "works of authorship" covered by the act, including such categories as "literary works," "musical works," and "dramatic works." The list does not include athletic events, and, although the list is concededly non- exclusive, such events are neither similar nor analogous to any of the listed categories.
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright
Protection > Subject Matter > General Overview
HN3[ ] Statutory Copyright & Fixation, Original Works of Authorship
See 17 U.S.C.S. § 102(a).
Copyright Law > … > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Fixation Requirement > General Overview
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
HN4[ ] Statutory Copyright & Fixation, Fixation Requirement
The Copyright Act (the Act), 17 U.S.C.S. § 102(a), was amended in 1976 specifically to insure that simultaneously-recorded transmissions of live performances and sporting events would meet the Act's requirement that the original work of authorship be "fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
Copyright Law > … > Protected Subject Matter > Limited Protection for Factual Works > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
HN5[ ] Protected Subject Matter, Limited Protection for Factual Works
See 17 U.S.C.S. § 101.
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > Copying by Defendants
Copyright Law > … > Protected Subject Matter > Limited Protection for Ideas > General Overview
105 F.3d 841, *841; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527, **1; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1585, ***1585
Page 3 of 16
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
Copyright Law > … > Protected Subject Matter > Limited Protection for Factual Works > General Overview
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Ownership Interests > Governmental Works
Copyright Law > Copyright Infringement Actions > Civil Infringement Actions > General Overview
HN6[ ] Elements, Copying by Defendants
The "fact/expression dichotomy" is a bedrock principle of copyright law that limits severely the scope of protection in fact-based works. No author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work — termed "expression" — that displays the stamp of the author's originality.
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > General Overview
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Ownership Rights > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > General Overview
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > Federal Preemption
HN7[ ] Subject Matter, Common Law Copyrights
Under 17 U.S.C.S. § 301, a state law claim is preempted when: (i) the state law claim seeks to vindicate "legal or equitable rights that are equivalent" to one of the bundle of exclusive rights already protected by copyright law under 17 U.S.C.S. § 106 — styled the "general scope requirement"; and (ii) the particular work to which the state law claim is being applied falls within the type of works protected by the Copyright Act under §§ 102 and 103 — styled the "subject matter requirement."
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > General Overview
HN8[ ] Scope of Copyright Protection, Subject Matter
The subject matter requirement is met when the work of authorship being copied or misappropriated falls within the ambit of copyright protection.
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > Federal Preemption
Torts > … > Invasion of Privacy > Appropriation > Defenses
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Original Works of Authorship
Torts > … > Invasion of Privacy > Appropriation > General Overview
HN9[ ] Federal & State Law Interrelationships, Federal Preemption
Once a performance is reduced to tangible form, there is no distinction between the performance and the recording of the performance for the purposes of preemption under 17 U.S.C.S. § 301(a).
105 F.3d 841, *841; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527, **1; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1585, ***1585
Page 4 of 16
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Subject Matter > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > General Overview
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > Federal Preemption
HN10[ ] Subject Matter, Common Law Copyrights
Copyrightable material often contains uncopyrightable elements within it, but 17 U.S.C.S. § 301 preemption bars state law misappropriation claims with respect to uncopyrightable as well as copyrightable elements.
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > … > Protected Subject Matter > Limited Protection for Factual Works > General Overview
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > Federal Preemption
Copyright Law > … > Statutory Copyright & Fixation > Unprotected Subject Matter > Unprotected Facts
HN11[ ] Subject Matter, Common Law Copyrights
Adoption of a partial preemption doctrine — preemption of claims based on misappropriation of broadcasts but no preemption of claims based on misappropriation of underlying facts — would expand significantly the reach of state law claims and render the preemption intended by Congress unworkable.
Copyright Law > Scope of Copyright Protection > Subject Matter > Common Law Copyrights
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > General Overview
Copyright Law > … > Civil Infringement Actions > Elements > Copying by Defendants
Copyright Law > Constitutional Copyright Protections > Federal & State Law Interrelationships > Federal Preemption
HN12[ ] Subject Matter, Common Law Copyrights
Under the general scope requirement, 17 U.S.C.S. § 301 preempts only those state law rights that may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights provided by federal copyright law. However, certain forms of commercial misappropriation otherwise within the general scope requirement will survive preemption if an "extra-element" test is met.
Business & Corporate Compliance > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Designation of Origin > Elements of False Designation of Origin Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Designation of Origin > Elements of False Designation of Origin
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > Trade Dress Protection > General Overview
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > Lanham Act > General Overview
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Advertising > General Overview
HN13[ ] False Designation of Origin, Elements of False Designation of Origin
See 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a)(1).
Business & Corporate Compliance > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Advertising > Elements of False Advertising Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition
105 F.3d 841, *841; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527, **1; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1585, ***1585
Page 5 of 16
Law > False Advertising > Elements of False Advertising
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > Trade Dress Protection > General Overview
Trademark Law > … > Unfair Competition > Federal Unfair Competition Law > General Overview
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > Lanham Act > General Overview
Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Advertising > General Overview
Business & Corporate Compliance > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Designation of Origin > Elements of False Designation of Origin Trademark Law > … > Federal Unfair Competition Law > False Designation of Origin > Elements of False Designation of Origin
HN14[ ] False Advertising, Elements of False Advertising
To establish a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement in the challenged advertisement is false. Falsity may be established by proving that (1) the advertising is literally false as a factual matter, or (2) although the advertisement is literally true, it is likely to deceive or confuse customers. However, in addition to proving falsity, the plaintiff must also show that the defendants misrepresented an "inherent quality or characteristic" of the product.
Counsel: JEFFREY A. MISHKIN, The National Basketball Association and NBA Properties, Inc., New York, New York (Kathryn L. Barrett, Richard W. Buchanan, of counsel; Roger L. Zissu, Mark D. Engelmann, Raphael Winick, Weiss Dawid Fross Zelnick & Lehrman, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Counter- Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
HERBERT [**2] F. SCHWARTZ, Fish & Neave, New York, New York (Patricia A. Martone, Vincent N. Palladino, of counsel; Roger H. Dusberger, Motorola, Inc., of counsel), for Defendant-Counter-Claimant- Appellant- Cross-Appellee.
ANDREW L. DEUTSCH, Piper & Marbury, New York, New York (Edward F. Malaf, of counsel; Paul M. Levy, Alan D. Leib, Deutsch Levy & Engel Chartered, Chicago, Illinois, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant-
Cross-Appellee.
Bruce P. Keller, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, New York (Lorin L. Reisner, of counsel), for Amici Curiae National Football League, Office of the C
